On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:05:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).

(2010 numbers)
TX $.124 /kWh
CA $.147 /kWh
AK $.151 /kWh
MA $.163 /kWh
NY $.175 /kWh
CT $.187 /kWh

lies after the first snipped

Are electricity prices the same everywhere in Texas?

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:



One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

The main tool with which to do this is education.

Alas, they are falling down on the job, big-time.

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:28:24 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:37:28 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article
, Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and
abuse. Is that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow a far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

What's really a disgrace is that given the education budget of the US,
there is anyone as stone stupid as the common lefty.


I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O

TDD

You are 100% correct.

Jason, you have made it clear that you are not competent to judge such
claims. Besides, what makes you think that he isn't including you as one
of the complete dumbasses?

It does not matter since I enjoyed reading the above post.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:45:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:16:35 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
innews:c26f7eae-81a
:





On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,

Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.

or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.

Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.


Liar, liar, pants on fire! You carefull edited out this part which
totally
changes the math:

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues,
which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in
uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not
paid for by the state.”

So:

$1.58bil - $1.16bil - $1.44 bil = - $1bil

In other words illegal alliens actually cost the citizens of TX,
$1bil.


You aren't factoring in the consumer cost of
goods and service kept artifically low by the
work of illegals. How high would wages (and thus
prices) have to go to lure Americans into fields
to pick lettuce and strawberries and to gut cattle
and "process" chickens and pigs?


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.


Considering that documented workers get paid the same as undocumented ones,
There would be no additional cost
Come back when you have something other than a false argument.

There is clear evidence that undocumented workers get defrauded by
employers.


An "undocumented worker" i.e. "illegal alien" is a criminal to start
with. I suppose low pay is a criminal penalty. ^_^

*NO* job should be the penalty. Any employer should share the
penalty, as well.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic. ^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction doesn't
seem to be helping much.

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution, you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger). It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:21:11 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in news
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).


Consider yourself corrected.


http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rc...rnia_rivalry_m
o.html

Nothing relevant there.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busi...regulation-in-
Texas-fails-to-make-power-more-4191062.php

Nothing relevant there.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/t...ince-electric-
deregulation/

HTTP ERROR 500


Nope. Looks like you're lying again. Not unexpected, since you're a
loony leftie.

Why don't you just show the electric rates for the 50 states? ...of
STFU and admit that you're a liar.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:33:19 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:05:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).

(2010 numbers)
TX $.124 /kWh
CA $.147 /kWh
AK $.151 /kWh
MA $.163 /kWh
NY $.175 /kWh
CT $.187 /kWh

lies after the first snipped

Are electricity prices the same everywhere in Texas?

You really don't have to show what an idiot you are. Really, we got
it, already.

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he could be
placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American
citizen.

It absolutely does NOT mean that.


Actually it does
There are only 3 States that issue State ID, including Driver's License that
does not require proof of citizenship or legal residence, New Mexico, Utah,
Washington
Every other state REQUIRES proof of citizenship or legal residence to issue
a driver's license.

But driving in the US with a foreign license is NOT proof of being in the
country illegally
But you cannot legally reside in ANY State beyond a certain length of time
before you are required to get a local license.
A person who claims to be an American resident for more than 30 days and
driving an out-of-country license is definitely a red flag situation

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:57:44 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid $1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food
stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing
so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people
will
get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge
corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply
as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

It's more like this: They may be fat but could also be malnourished.

That's exactly right. Wow.

--

If they're fat, they're getting more than enough of those "calories" jd
was
blubbering about
If they were as "malnourished" and you moronic goalpost movers claim,
they
wouldn't have the strength to stuff their faces.

Which is, of course, hogwash and poppycock.
Malnourishment and body fat ratio are not automatically
correlated, as any doctor will be only too happy to confirm.
You can be built like John Candy and still suffer from
rickets or scurvy.



So they have a lousy diet
But jd was blubbering about calories.
Do try to follow..

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 21:04:40 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...



People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us
have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.


And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have
friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?

Only you, because you didn't bother to read up on what we're
talking about.

Sure I did
But hey, spin as much as you can
It's the only way out for you.

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/3/2013 8:28 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...





On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food
stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and
abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing
so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people
will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the
most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the
world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is
crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge
corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply
as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural
areas
?
Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us
have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't
exist.

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have
friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

Nope. You might look stuff up instead of making a fool of yourself.

But that'd get in the way of your rants, so I can see your problem with
doing that.



Spin, baby, spin
Your "food deserts" are actually brain deserts", pinky brains that is..

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe
even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would
ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?


The problem is that in the majority of States, you need to be a citizen or
legal alien to be able to get a driver's license
There are some exceptions that have decided to issue driver's licenses to
people who do NOT have legal status in the US

In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he could be
placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American
citizen.

It absolutely does NOT mean that.


Actually it does
There are only 3 States that issue State ID, including Driver's License that
does not require proof of citizenship or legal residence, New Mexico, Utah,
Washington
Every other state REQUIRES proof of citizenship or legal residence to issue
a driver's license.

But driving in the US with a foreign license is NOT proof of being in the
country illegally
But you cannot legally reside in ANY State beyond a certain length of time
before you are required to get a local license.
A person who claims to be an American resident for more than 30 days and
driving an out-of-country license is definitely a red flag situation

pesky facts---liberals seem to hate pesky facts.

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy
food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution, you moron (or moran, if you're a Teabagger).
It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican government. Read
a book, will ya?



Which book do you suggest ?
Let's have a list of the books that allegedly

Meanwhile maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, followed by the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to
discover how wrong you are.
Oh wait, that would require that you actually EDUCATE yourself by going to
the source, instead of reading some propaganda from Huff-poo or Mother
Jones.

wrote in :

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction doesn't
seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?



"The Constitution established the United States of
America as a Christian nation"
John McCain, June 5 2008. The Constitution in fact
makes no mention of God or of Jesus or any religion
whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he
could be placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in
Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American
citizen.

It absolutely does NOT mean that.


Actually it does
There are only 3 States that issue State ID, including Driver's
License that does not require proof of citizenship or legal
residence, New Mexico, Utah, Washington
Every other state REQUIRES proof of citizenship or legal residence to
issue a driver's license.

But driving in the US with a foreign license is NOT proof of being in
the country illegally
But you cannot legally reside in ANY State beyond a certain length of
time before you are required to get a local license.
A person who claims to be an American resident for more than 30 days
and driving an out-of-country license is definitely a red flag
situation

pesky facts---liberals seem to hate pesky facts.




Good thing we have Jason to provide us with "facts".




"Lots of people voted for Clinton even after they
found out that he was having sex with Monica."
Jason, Jan 9.2012. In fact Clinton never ran for
office again after the Monicagate scandal.

His experince with liberals might have been part
of the "trust but verify" policy later used on the
liberal Soviet Union?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
wrote in message ...

Yes, you're right. Reagan made a mistake when he supported amnesty
for the millions of illegal aliens. Part of it was that it was going
to be
a one time thing and that the govt was actually going to do it's job
and secure the border. They never did. So, let's not make the same
mistake again.

It's a step in the right direction. Surely, if only
one life can be saved, won't it be worth it?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Alex W." wrote in message ...

Oh, there it is: the wish-fulfilment delusion of "securing
the border", a line running across more than 2,000 miles of
often vastly difficult terrain, with a few split towns and a
national park thrown into the mix.

Tell me: when was the last time a wall actually worked for
any country wishing to secure its border? Didn't work for
the Romans, didn't work for China, didn't work for East
Germany, so what makes you think the US can do any better?

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:40:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction doesn't
seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?

That's certainly the funniest thing I've read all day, but I just
started here. I'm sure you can do even better.

BTW, it's you lefties who know *nothing* about civics (and prove it
with every utterance). ...just like your moronic friend who said it's
government's job to counteract market forces. You lefties are stone
stupid.

wrote in :

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:40:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction
doesn't
seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?

That's certainly the funniest thing I've read all day, but I just
started here. I'm sure you can do even better.

BTW, it's you lefties who know *nothing* about civics (and prove it
with every utterance). ...just like your moronic friend who said it's
government's job to counteract market forces. You lefties are stone
stupid.


Oh, dear, you deleted the proof of conservative
stupidity when it comes to civics. Maybe history is
your strong suit.

Oh, wait............




"What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in
common is our extreme love for liberty. You’re the
state where the shot was heard around the world in
Lexington and Concord."
Michelle Bachmann, March 12 2011



"Revere warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna
be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and
um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to
send those warning shots and bells that we were going to
be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going
to be armed."
Sarah Palin, June 3 2011

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

Yup. You're a moran.

On 6/5/2013 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:40:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction doesn't
seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?

That's certainly the funniest thing I've read all day, but I just
started here. I'm sure you can do even better.

BTW, it's you lefties who know *nothing* about civics (and prove it
with every utterance). ...just like your moronic friend who said it's
government's job to counteract market forces. You lefties are stone
stupid.

I wrote it's *part of* the government's job to counteract *the harmful
effects of* market forces, not all market forces. And that's a true
statement.

You righties are stone stupid and moranic [sic].

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

On 6/5/2013 12:48 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
wrote in :

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:40:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand
in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction
doesn't
seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?

That's certainly the funniest thing I've read all day, but I just
started here. I'm sure you can do even better.

BTW, it's you lefties who know *nothing* about civics (and prove it
with every utterance). ...just like your moronic friend who said it's
government's job to counteract market forces. You lefties are stone
stupid.


Oh, dear, you deleted the proof of conservative
stupidity when it comes to civics. Maybe history is
your strong suit.

Oh, wait............




"What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in
common is our extreme love for liberty. You’re the
state where the shot was heard around the world in
Lexington and Concord."
Michelle Bachmann, March 12 2011



"Revere warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna
be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and
um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to
send those warning shots and bells that we were going to
be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going
to be armed."
Sarah Palin, June 3 2011



Those crack me up every time.

Tom McDonald wrote in
:

On 6/5/2013 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:40:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
news:c26f7eae-81a4-423a-be42-
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a
republic.
^_^

Given the loony lefties infesting this group, that distinction
doesn't seem to be helping much.



Why is it that conservatives are so ignorant
about basic civics?

That's certainly the funniest thing I've read all day, but I just
started here. I'm sure you can do even better.

BTW, it's you lefties who know *nothing* about civics (and prove it
with every utterance). ...just like your moronic friend who said
it's government's job to counteract market forces. You lefties are
stone stupid.

I wrote it's *part of* the government's job to counteract *the harmful
effects of* market forces, not all market forces. And that's a true
statement.

You righties are stone stupid and moranic [sic].



Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from insisting that we reduce regulations and
"government interference in the marketplace" to
claim the "dot com bubble burst" was Clinton's fault
because he didn't regulate the market enough.

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^

TDD

On 6/4/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:45:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:16:35 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
innews:c26f7eae-81a
:





On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,

Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.

or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.

Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.


Liar, liar, pants on fire! You carefull edited out this part which
totally
changes the math:

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues,
which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in
uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not
paid for by the state.”

So:

$1.58bil - $1.16bil - $1.44 bil = - $1bil

In other words illegal alliens actually cost the citizens of TX,
$1bil.


You aren't factoring in the consumer cost of
goods and service kept artifically low by the
work of illegals. How high would wages (and thus
prices) have to go to lure Americans into fields
to pick lettuce and strawberries and to gut cattle
and "process" chickens and pigs?


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.


Considering that documented workers get paid the same as undocumented ones,
There would be no additional cost
Come back when you have something other than a false argument.

There is clear evidence that undocumented workers get defrauded by
employers.


An "undocumented worker" i.e. "illegal alien" is a criminal to start
with. I suppose low pay is a criminal penalty. ^_^

*NO* job should be the penalty. Any employer should share the
penalty, as well.


As you must know by now, anything I post should be taken with the proper
amount of seasoning. Those on a salt restricted diet should
seek out a salt substitute. Besides, P.L.L.C.F. have no sense of
humor. ^_^

TDD

On 6/1/2013 9:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in
:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.




Conservatives have no clue about the dynamics
of the labor market.




Pear Crop Rots as Hands Kept from Crossing Border
ABC News

Nick Ivicevich has been growing pears in northern
California for 45 years, but never had he seen as
good a crop as the one that blossomed here this
season. But now, much of his crop, almost two
million pounds, lies on the ground -- rotting away.

Thanks to increased security along the Mexican
border, thousands of migrant workers who harvest
the nation's fruits and vegetables never showed
up for work. Ivicevich's pears ripened and then
just fell off the tree.

Farmers across the country blame Congress for
not coming up with legislation that would grant
migrant workers "seasonal worker status,"
allowing them to come work in U.S. fields
temporarily and legally. It's a matter of
national security, some say.

"We couldn't get by without foreign workers in
California," said Jack King of the California
Farm Bureau. "We employ some 450,000 workers."

As if things weren't bad enough, the farmers in
California are worried about the pruning season
for the pear trees in December. And then there's
the next harvest -- not only pears, but also of
grapes and walnuts. Unless those workers somehow
get across that border, agriculture here once
again will be hard hit, if not crippled.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=2677661&page=1


So who's to blame, the law has been ignored for so long, what would you
expect? I do seem to recall a good guest worker policy in years past but
people ignored the law and didn't go home and they were allowed to get
away with it. I would definitely like to see a good guest/migrant farm
worker policy and put some teeth in it and enforce it so scofflaws would
be reluctant to ignore the law. o_O

TDD

On 6/2/2013 4:48 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:01:04 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:



Damn those pesky facts.

Facts, pesky or not, may not be found on the Fox
Entertainment Network.

Should Holder be fired--here are some pesky facts for you:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/24/did-eric-holder-lie-under-oath-to-congress-heres-the-evidence-being-presented/



I expect Democrats to lie, cheat and steal, so I'm never shocked at
their behavior. ^_^

TDD

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:24:14 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:28:24 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:
....
I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O

TDD

You are 100% correct.

Jason, you have made it clear that you are not competent to judge such
claims. Besides, what makes you think that he isn't including you as one
of the complete dumbasses?

It does not matter since I enjoyed reading the above post.

You often enjoy evil diatribes.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:28:56 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^

TDD

What a foolish attempt at a response.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:54:57 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:33:19 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:05:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).

(2010 numbers)
TX $.124 /kWh
CA $.147 /kWh
AK $.151 /kWh
MA $.163 /kWh
NY $.175 /kWh
CT $.187 /kWh

lies after the first snipped

Are electricity prices the same everywhere in Texas?

You really don't have to show what an idiot you are. Really, we got
it, already.

So you know that you overgeneralized.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:59:21 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

Yup. You're a moran.

You really *are* a dumb**** lefty.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:07:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.
"It's not in the Constitution"

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Reading the Constitution that "liberally" one can justify *anything*,
including concentration camps. You really are a dumb****!

I'm really surprised you didn't come up with the "general welfare"
bull**** you idiot lefties usually do, though.

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

You really are a dumb****! Proven.

Wow! A twofer. You really are a stupid ****!

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:15:45 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:28:56 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^

TDD

What a foolish attempt at a response.

Give him the credit he disserves. He *was* attempting to communicate
with you. He still talked too far above you, obviously.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:32:45 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:45:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:16:35 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
innews:c26f7eae-81a
:





On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 i
n
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,

Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.

or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.

Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.


Liar, liar, pants on fire! You carefull edited out this part which
totally
changes the math:

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues,
which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in
uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not
paid for by the state.”

So:

$1.58bil - $1.16bil - $1.44 bil = - $1bil

In other words illegal alliens actually cost the citizens of TX,
$1bil.


You aren't factoring in the consumer cost of
goods and service kept artifically low by the
work of illegals. How high would wages (and thus
prices) have to go to lure Americans into fields
to pick lettuce and strawberries and to gut cattle
and "process" chickens and pigs?


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.


Considering that documented workers get paid the same as undocumented ones,
There would be no additional cost
Come back when you have something other than a false argument.

There is clear evidence that undocumented workers get defrauded by
employers.


An "undocumented worker" i.e. "illegal alien" is a criminal to start
with. I suppose low pay is a criminal penalty. ^_^

*NO* job should be the penalty. Any employer should share the
penalty, as well.


As you must know by now, anything I post should be taken with the proper
amount of seasoning. Those on a salt restricted diet should
seek out a salt substitute. Besides, P.L.L.C.F. have no sense of
humor. ^_^

It requires a brain, too, something that obviously disqualifies all
lefties.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:41:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 9:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in
:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. The law was very quickly modified.




Conservatives have no clue about the dynamics
of the labor market.

More lies from a dumb**** lefty.


Pear Crop Rots as Hands Kept from Crossing Border
ABC News

Nick Ivicevich has been growing pears in northern
California for 45 years, but never had he seen as
good a crop as the one that blossomed here this
season. But now, much of his crop, almost two
million pounds, lies on the ground -- rotting away.

Thanks to increased security along the Mexican
border, thousands of migrant workers who harvest
the nation's fruits and vegetables never showed
up for work. Ivicevich's pears ripened and then
just fell off the tree.

Farmers across the country blame Congress for
not coming up with legislation that would grant
migrant workers "seasonal worker status,"
allowing them to come work in U.S. fields
temporarily and legally. It's a matter of
national security, some say.

"We couldn't get by without foreign workers in
California," said Jack King of the California
Farm Bureau. "We employ some 450,000 workers."

As if things weren't bad enough, the farmers in
California are worried about the pruning season
for the pear trees in December. And then there's
the next harvest -- not only pears, but also of
grapes and walnuts. Unless those workers somehow
get across that border, agriculture here once
again will be hard hit, if not crippled.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=2677661&page=1


So who's to blame, the law has been ignored for so long, what would you
expect? I do seem to recall a good guest worker policy in years past but
people ignored the law and didn't go home and they were allowed to get
away with it. I would definitely like to see a good guest/migrant farm
worker policy and put some teeth in it and enforce it so scofflaws would
be reluctant to ignore the law. o_O

Absolutely correct.